Regular readers of Tyler's Cryptozoo will have noticed that I have not been on much lately. I only had three posts up in August - all concerning news about my new book that I wrote with Colin Schneider, Ramblings of Teenaged Cryptozoologists.
So what's with the absence?
If you are a regular reader of the blog, you may recall a post from a few months ago (July I believe) in which I said I might not be on as much anymore. Well, that's obviously what's happening. In this post, I thought I would let my readers know why I haven't been on that much.
There's really one big reason - my interest in cryptozoology has died down. Now, that doesn't mean I'm not at all interested in the subject anymore. But, over the past year or so, a lot of stuff in the field has really turned me off. I'm still interested in looking at this stuff from a scientific standpoint. But, that's the main problem again: much of what goes on in cryptozoology is not scientific. Most "cryptozoologists" call themselves "experts" on this or that when they definitely are not. Many Bigfoot hunters are "weekend warrior" types who think they know everything about a probably non-existent primate that has managed to stay hidden in the shrinking forests of the US and Canada.
The last few sentences of the above paragraph will probably anger some people who research cryptozoology. And that is one more reason why my interest has died down. They'll say I'm a skeptic, like that's a bad thing, and belittle me because I don't "believe" in Bigfoot or this or that cryptid. But, here's the thing: I used to be one of those people. Yes, I believed in Bigfoot, Yowie, Champ, Nessie, etc. That's when I was younger, when I was just getting into the field. I was like many who would say "cryptozoology is a science!" or "There is evidence, you just won't look at it." But, do you know what I've come to realize?
Cryptozoology is no real science. Real science is usually shunned by those who call themselves cryptozoologists.
And, mostly all the "evidence" for Bigfoot, Nessie, etc. can be explained away as just about anything other than a big ape-man or a living plesiosaur. Believers will try to show it to scientists, but then get mad at those same scientists when they tell them that anecdotal accounts or footprint casts cannot prove Bigfoot is real. They're just "closed minded," they will say. They will try to belittle people who actually know what they're talking about.
Those are the main to reasons related to cryptozoology that have caused me to back off some. The other reason is because I've become interested in other things. I'm more into reading biographies and stuff on politics and history now. I read books on Ronald Reagan and Bobby Kennedy instead of Bigfoot and Mothman. I look into politics and current society and how ideas have changed since the 20th Century, and how they are impacting us today. I've also started to think a lot more about philosophy and what I think about the world. I fell like this stuff can give me more meaning and let me think more about what I'm looking into than I can with cryptozoology.
So, that's why I haven't been on the blog much lately. But, I will still be around some. I'm actually currently reading Bill Munns' 2014 book When Roger Met Patty and will be reviewing it by chapter and then in its totality. I think a critical examination of the book will be good for the field, and there are many notes and highlights in mine noting things I will be discussing in that series of posts. Be on the lookout for those.
Other than that, I don't know how much I'll be on. I'm not really going to events anymore, Colin's show isn't on (and that was one of the main things I still liked about the field), and I just can't really stand how the field is run anymore. I will still be around a little bit, though.
Don't lose an interest in cryptozoology if you like it. But, please use critical thinking and science. Thanks.